Oh, For.... (Part Two)

[filkertom]

Wonderful. Kerry backed off. The Dems don't want him around.

WHY THE FUCK SHOULD ANY OF US BOTHER WITH THESE COWARDS!?

George Allen comes up with half a dozen excuses for a racial slur, tries to whitewash his past, and then his staff basically assaults a guy yesterday for asking personal questions. Bush and Cheney publicly say that Dems want to surrender to the terrorists. Rush Limbaugh makes fun of Michael J. Fox's goddamn brain disease. And on, and on, and on and on and on. And the rest of the party, and the press, and the fuckweeds at Townhall and Free Republic and RedState nod and go, "Ah-yup".

Kerry botches a joke, and everybody -- including his own party -- treat him like plutonium. And what does he do? He cancels everything.

Fuck you, Kerry.

Understand -- I'm not pissed at Kerry for what he said yesterday. I agree with that completely, even if I wish he'd, y'know, remembered the rest of his joke. No, I'm pissed at him for what he did today. And for what he did in 2004, when he said, "America, I've got your back" and then folded like a goddamn map before the returns were all counted. And for "I voted before the Iraq war before I voted against it."

And Fuck you, Democrats. Fuck you for abandoning Kerry to the wolves over this blown-up-out-of-all-proportion obvious-dodge bullshit.

I'm going to vote Democrat, because the Repubs in power are either evil or enabling evil, down the line. But there are gonna be some goddamn changes made. And it's entirely possible that the Dems still don't see them coming. I mean, hell -- Joe Biden and hillary Clinton still think they have a chance to become President.

We The People are getting really sick of this baby-talk shit. There's a country to run, goddammit, and it has to be run by someone. For the past six years, it hasn't been, and look where we are.

Comments

[selenesue.livejournal.com]

We need a hero. No. We need a LEADER. I don't see one emerging anytime soon.

Hey Tom, wanna run for prez? Couldn't be worse than any of the current prospects.

[O the secret service nightmare of a filk at the White House. Snort.]

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Trust me, I'm the wrong guy. :) Much better as a court-jester, trying to say the truth as loudly and bluntly as possible.

[selenesue.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but, yeah, but. None of the people with brains and spines actually want the job, that's the problem.

Whom would you DRAFT for President?

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

That's exactly what the right guy would say.

[wolfger.livejournal.com]

So said Robin Williams, in "Man of the Year"... I disagree. I think this country needs a jester to rule the kingdom for a short while, if for no other reason than to inject some reality into the situation. While jesters are known for being foolish and funny, many people ignore their capacity for insight and wisdom... Those are two traits that ought to be (but rarely are) sought after in candidates.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

Al Gore. Al Gore may just be one of the rare born rulers.

...scary, ain't it?

[batyatoon]

I'm reading the article, and I don't see it -- where does it say Kerry's backing off?

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

That would be the first sentence: "Sen. John Kerry canceled plans to campaign for fellow Democrats...." He won't stand up for himself to his own party, of which he is one of the ostensible "leaders".

[batyatoon]

*looks again*



...well dammit.

[archanglrobriel.livejournal.com]

A-friggin'-MEN!!! I'm sick to death of the Democrats seemingly endless flow of spineless bullshit and the -only- reason I'm voting for them is because the Republicans are worse. I'm extremely NOT happy with constantly voting for Tweedle-Dem instead of Tweedle-Dumber.

[ailsaek.livejournal.com]

I would love to see someone with an actual vision, some beliefs, a dream, someone who puts something out there for us to follow and work for, not just someone who isn't the other guy. I am so tired of Coke-or-Pepsi Democrats I could just scream. And I want to slap John McCain silly. Because at one time, I thought that Republicans, while their ideals aren't mine, at least stood for something.

[wolfger.livejournal.com]

The Democratic party sucks, and the Republican party sucks more, and your solution is to reward the Democrats for sucking. So what about this makes you think a change is going to come? Once you reward bad behaviour, you can only expect more of the same. If you want a change, you need to vote 3rd party. Yeah, I know... "throwing my vote away", and "they'll never win", and blah blah blah... lots of self-fulfilling-prophecy crap. Fact is there are more non-voters than there are voters for either "major party", and a lot of people (that I've talked to since 2004, at least) who vote for a "major party" actually like a 3rd party candidate, but subscribe to this self-fulfilling-prophecy crap. Bottom line is: if everybody who wanted to vote 3rd party did so, one or both of the "major parties" would be in for a rude awakening. The tough part, it seems, is convincing voters that their vote actually counts regardless of who they vote for. In 2004, I allowed myself to be talked into voting for Kerry even though I didn't like him, on the principle that he was the best chance to beat Bush. End result? Bush still won, and I don't even have a clear conscience because I voted for a bad candidate instead of a good one. Governor race here in Michigan is a good example of this. Granholm sucks. DeVos sucks even worse. I'll not be had again. This year, I will vote my conscience. If my guy doesn't win, at least I'll be absolved of blame for whichever craphole governor we're stuck with.

Sorry, but...

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

A lot of people voted their conscience in 2000, and look what happened.

The problem with third-party candidacies, to my mind, is twofold:

[1] They scold the people they should be selling themselves to. They literally don not know any way to appeal to the average voter. I've written before that Nader's principle message was Eat your vegetables, they'll soften your stool. He had no concept of how to sell himself or his agenda to the American people. Multiply that by the Greens, Reform, etc., etc., etc.

[2] They do not understand real-world economics, and have no idea how to explain why their policies would be good things. Granted, I don't think most economists do, either. I think a lot of candidates screw it up. But a lot of businesses operate on precisely one measure of success: bottom-line profit. And, given how very many policies affect economic matters on multiple levels, it should be the job of a candidate to be able to explain [a] why this is a bad way of measuring success and [b] why that candidate's policy would be successful on different terms that outweigh profit. They don't. I don't think they can, because they don't think in those terms. They can't present the case for better-on-balance because they are literally speaking a different language: the language of angry idealism, rather than self-interest. They have to find the enlightened self-interest in between. And they don't even try.

[emiofbrie.livejournal.com]

A-men! See icon

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

That would be nice, if we had instant runoff voting. But such is not the case.

Seems to me, if you and your alternative party get 3% of the vote, King Log of the Democrats gets 48%, and King Evil of the Republicans wins with 49%, then your three percent effectively put King Evil into power, just because you were too lily-pure to sully your hands by touching a Log. And yeah, we'll sure appreciate your announcement that you should be "absolved of blame" as they pack us all into the handbasket together.

I don't reward Democrats for sucking. I reward them for not sucking as bad as the only other one who might win.

[morpheus0013.livejournal.com]

Once you reward bad behaviour, you can only expect more of the same.

That works if you're talking about a three-month-old puppy. Politics have slightly more at stake than the condition of your living room carpet.

If you want a change, you need to vote 3rd party.

You're absolutely right. Look at how much the country has changed since 2000. Weeeee--way to go!

Bottom line is: if everybody who wanted to vote 3rd party did so, one or both of the "major parties" would be in for a rude awakening.

Yes, they would be. So would the rest of the country, when we were being governed by someone who got only 1/3 of the country's vote--or better yet, if a third party candidate emerged that actually wasn't partially clinically insane, a candidate that was elected by only a 10% vote.

Don't presume every "3rd party voter" would vote for someone you would vote for. If it were currently plausible for a 3rd party candidate to get into office, we'd be in a shitload of trouble from whatever nutjob Constitution Party or Libertarian happened to snag the Evangelical Christian community. (Not a TRUE Libertarian; the whacko Libertarians who apparently think Libertarian=Anarchy.)

If my guy doesn't win, at least I'll be absolved of blame for whichever craphole governor we're stuck with.


I have trouble wrapping my brain around the idea of voting based on the idea of "You can't blame me--I voted for the other guy!" I'd have way more trouble sleeping at night if my vote for an inviable candidate helped put someone evil into power.

When there's a viable third party, I will be glad to consider them for my vote. Being as I don't vote party lines anyhow, it won't matter much ultimately.

[dandelion-diva.livejournal.com]

Yes, that. Thank you.

Gessi

[morpheus0013.livejournal.com]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I miss Paul Wellstone.

Also, I think you're being a wee bit overly harsh on the Dems as a whole.

[trdsf.livejournal.com]

*snif* Agreed. What a national candidate he could've made.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

WHY THE FUCK SHOULD ANY OF US BOTHER WITH THESE COWARDS!?


Because discretion is the better part of valor. Because when it is really important, you have to pick yoru battles. And anyone who doesn't realize that doesn't deserve to be in office.

Kerry realizes it - he's taking the hit, and choosing to make sure his error doesn't hurt the larger cause. You'd prefer, perhaps, that he risk sinking several mid-term elections? What's more important - standing up against the GOP over a poor choice of words, or leaving the Congress in GOP hands?

Governance and politics requires one be able to work with people you never get to talk to directly - the voting public. And sometimes, that means backing off when you have offended.

[morpheus0013.livejournal.com]

Amen.

I was hoping someone understood that the election is in ONE WEEK, and if you want the greater good served, you need to know when to bend.

But I'm also saddened at seeing John Kerry become the Democrats "but Clinton!" The guy can't do anything right, even for the people who should think he's pretty alright. I don't think he got beat by Bush in 2004--I think we, the people who should have been supporting him, beat him.

I think he's just too damned intelligent. It turns people off, which may be the saddest thing of all.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

That's a decent way to look at it, and I'd like to think you're right.

I don't want to be mad at Kerry. He spoke the fucking truth. As Steve at the News Blog (http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/11/calm-fuck-down.html) said, even if you take Kerry's words at face value, he's right. "John Kerry is telling the truth and everyone knows it. Rich kids do not join the military, college bound kids don't join the military, only the poor and those who can't get scholarships do. Acting like he was lying or insulting people is just bullshit."

It comes back to Dems being afraid of offending people who despise them. Screw that. Get in their faces with the freakin' truth. Make them defend themselves, their words, their actions.

[joecoustic.livejournal.com]

Here is an interesting take on how this could be used to best advantage though by keeping Iraq (and others missteps)in the news through the elections:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-foster-altschul/great-apology-senator-ke_b_33000.html

But I agree with you, we need more of a backbone here!

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

What we need is a liberal who KNOWS how to HATE!

[trdsf.livejournal.com]

Hate, no.

We need a liberal with rage, and is not afraid to show it.

If only Wellstone were still alive, or Harkin ten years younger... Tom Harkin has been my 'adopted' senator for years, since my two goobers surely don't represent me.